Intellectual property

New ideas about new ideas

Some drops of sweet reason in a battle over copyright and patent reform

MODERN economies are not built with capital or labour as much as by ideas. Nearly half America's gross domestic product is based on intellectual property, one estimate found. Japan has called the husbanding of such property a national priority. A raft of United Nations agencies, covering health or development or trade, are squabbling over how best to enforce patents and copyrights while also promoting innovation.

The latest contribution to this feverish debate is a report released this week by Britain's Treasury, called the “Gowers Review of Intellectual Property”. It follows a year-long study led by Andrew Gowers, an ex-editor of the Financial Times. Its aim was to take a rational, evidence-based view of intellectual property and ways to safeguard it. To the dismay of some and the delight of others, it calls for a balance between the interests of creators and the public.

This idea of balance will anger the entertainment industry, which has tried to win over politicians with some siren songs. For example, the music company EMI enlisted ageing crooners to back its campaign for the length of copyright for sound recordings in Europe to be extended from 50 to 95 years, following America's lead. The study rejects this. It wants much firmer enforcement of the rules, but also says copying material for private use should be made easier.

The report urges a reform of the patent system. Going to court to uphold a patent costs a company a minimum of $1.5m; that may oblige innocent firms to pay to settle and prevents infringed parties from seeking redress. A system to protect intellectual property is meaningless if only the rich can use (or abuse) it.

The study provided a chance for all sides in the debate to lay out their cases—so it is affecting the climate of opinion all over the world. In Australia this week, a Copyright Amendment Bill passed both houses of parliament, but only after some draconian features—like stiff fines for unintentional infringement—were removed at the last minute.

In many places there is a problem over intellectual property because of an imbalance of power between copyright and patent holders on the one hand, and the public on the other. The new review, by sifting evidence rather than taking the lobbyists' guinea, seems to have pushed the global debate forward.